Fahrenheit 451
Product Description
Werner stars as a fireman in charge of burning books in a future where reading is a crime. Christie plays a dual role as his wife and his book-collectAmazon.com essential video
The classic science fiction novel by Ray Bradbury was a curious choice for one of the leading directors of the French New Wave, François Truffaut. But from the opening credits onward (spoken, not written on screen), Truffaut takes Bradbury’s fascinating premise and makes it his own. The futuristic society depicted in Fahrenheit 451 is a culture without books. Firemen still race around in red trucks and wear helmets, but their job is to start fires: they ferret out forbidden stashes of books, douse them with gasoline, and make public bonfires. Oskar Werner, the star of Truffaut’s Jules and Jim, plays a fireman named Montag, whose exposure to David Copperfield wakens an instinct toward reading and individual thought. (That’s why books are banned–they give people too many ideas.) In an intriguing casting flourish, Julie Christie plays two roles: Montag’s bored, drugged-up wife and the woman who helps kindle the spark of rebellion. The great Bernard Herrmann wrote the hard-driving music; Nicolas Roeg provided the cinematography. Fahrenheit 451 received a cool critical reception and has never quite been accepted by Truffaut fans or sci-fi buffs. Its deliberately listless manner has always been a problem, although that is part of its point; the lack of reading has made people dry and empty. If the movie is a bit stiff (Truffaut did not speak English well and never tried another project in English), it nevertheless is full of intriguing touches, and the ending is lyrical and haunting. –Robert Horton
Popularity: 1% [?]
Anonymous said,
September 2, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
It’s time they made another updated movie version of this great book, because this movie version is terribly dated. I’m a teacher and I found this movie wouldn’t even hold the attention of my 10th graders when we were studying the book.
And another thing which mystifies me: Why did they pick an actor with a THICK German or some other undecipherable accent to lead? I don’t get that.
The special effects in this movie are almost non-existent (they simply cut out most of the parts in the book which would’ve required special effects, like the mechanical dog).
Rating: 1 / 5
Chris Salzer said,
September 2, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
So…to say I was a little let down after seeing this 1966 film version would be the understatement of the year. For starters, there was no robot dog in the movie…at all – bummer. Secondly, Clarisse is a school teacher who he’s supposedly having an affair with in the movie as opposed to the innocent, 16 year-old non-conformist neighbor in the book. Thirdly, he never meets the professor until after he’s already escaped. Oh yeah..and the firemen on rocket-propelled boosters looked like clowns in a freaking circus sent to provide comic relief! With the 60’s fashion and women’s hair styles in the movie I felt ill. And I’d be remissed if I failed to mention the ostensibly futuristic fire engine that looked like a cross between the batmobile(the old one) and a station wagon from hell that they painted red and decided to call a fire truck. The book is an amazing 5 stars and one of my all-time favs, but as for the movie – it’s a real laugher – but for all of the wrong reasons. I’d love to see Spielberg make it with today’s technology – it would finally do the book justice.
Rating: 2 / 5
Anonymous said,
September 2, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
A large fan of the book 451 may watch this movie in hopes for a deeper and more potent film, but be presented with a tangent. The book made the reader truely feel for the characters through simple dialogue, but the movie skewed from that and edited large important portions/characters/ideals from it’s presentation. Though a movie is subjected to mpaa/budjects/deadlines it could have used them to thier advantage. Not to say this film is dissapointing, but it just doesn’t feel right compared to the book.
If someone asked me If I had seen the movie, I wouldn’t be able to tell them I had, because I wouldn’t quite want to put the creators down who did a moderate film, but as a fan of the book I would simply say I hadn’t seen it – to prevent any explanations.
Rating: 1 / 5
Justin Gentili said,
September 3, 2010 @ 1:49 am
The Truffaut Taste Police can say what they like, but this film is an abomination. It’s not only a poor adaptation of a great book, it’s an insipidly mediocre film in its own right. I count “The 400 Blows” and “Jules & Jim” among my All Time Top Ten. But I still feel embarrassed for Truffaut every time I see this one. It tanks.
Rating: 1 / 5
C. Yount said,
September 3, 2010 @ 4:34 am
this movie was horrible. it did the book no justice at all. it’s supposed to depict the future and yet it was made in the sixties which is obvious and makes it feel like something from the past. some parts are right on but too many are different from the book. read the book because there are some parts and feelings/ideas that you will miss out on by just watching this terrible movie. if you have read the book, don’t make the same mistake as me and watch this movie! it will ruin the book for you!
Rating: 1 / 5